Precursor Unbalance Issues

[Baron Jukaga]

Then you wouldn't care if everything was balanced either.
Just because it doesn't bother you doesn't mean it doesn't bother other people. Let the game get balanced - you'll still have your fun.

No. You completely bypassed my point. 'Balance' is for Street Fighter games and MOBAs. You're chasing some ephemeral dream here in an open strategy game. Even if you caught it all it would do is increase the boring quotient of the game.

 

[DeanTheDull]

Complaining that it's not optimal for min-maxing is silly? Did you read what I said earlier? There are 2 groups that play. One of them IS the min-maxers (the powergamers). And they deserve JUST as much attention as the roleplayers. Just because you are in group A does not give you cause to say group B is inferior.

That right there basically invalidates everything you say, because it demonstrates that you don't even care about players other than yourself.

And 10% habitability is trash for machine empires, lithoids, and void dwellers. For the rest, it is only marginally good. Remember, for a long time, -10% habitability was the BEST negative trait to take (for min-maxers) because of how little habitability mattered. It's not that extreme anymore, but you can still play just fine with lower habitability. The changes you have to make are generally minimal.

Finally, you went STRAIGHT into hyperbole. Like, seriously, are you demonstrating how to make a useless post? Because you have invalidated half of players, demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of several major game mechanics as well as an ignorance for non-standard races, AND used an argument that holds no water because it is done in a ridiculous extreme. That's your entire post.

Then you wouldn't care if everything was balanced either.
Just because it doesn't bother you doesn't mean it doesn't bother other people. Let the game get balanced - you'll still have your fun.

Who are you, and which of your gods did I blaspheme to get you so agitated?

 

[DeanTheDull]

The first part of your post is more of a personal opinion than a valid argument that really contributes nothing here.

Stellaris not being a balanced military strategy game is a claim, but it's claim that can be argued on non-subjective grounds. If it is true, it contributes significantly by pointing out that judging it on the grounds of being something it's not even trying to be is mis-aimed criticism.

If we were to judge Stellaris as a competitive multi-player military game, a large number of flaws would come up right away, from heavily-lopsided metas for existential competitiveness to large numbers of actively detrimental combos, to the fact that tactical positioning and control is nearly non-existent and the primary strategic decisions are in the economic, not deployment, background.

On the other hand, if we judge Stellaaris as single-player economic and/or roleplaying games, where war-making viability (and multiplayer) isn't the intended selling point the game is built around, then not all things being balanced around war is like noting that sand is not soft. It would be true, and largely irrelevant to core design decisions.

Would you stand by an argument that Stellaris fundamentally a multi-player military strategy game?

The second part is largely missing the point, while also leaving out huge chunks of what has been said so you can reach a fallacious conclusion. You don't need "tens of thousands" to terraform everything. You're on purpose leaving out both droids and migration pacts, as well as different difficulties being an option for the game, up to and including 25x crisis.

You do need tens of thousands to terraform more than a handful of planets, and for most of the early game the best migration pacts can get you is 80% habitability if you're RNG-lucky. For most of the early game- which is to say, when you're getting to a decisive position or not- you're not going to have +20% habitability from techs, and 10% is still a 10% gain even for right-biome species. This is why habitability gains are still useful even with migration pacts.

Similarly, Robots don't negate the benefits of boosting habitability because robots are never going to be your empire's only source of pop growth unless, well, you're a strictly robot empire. Which we aren't talking about. For organics who build robots, the organics are going to remain a key part of the economy throughout the game until/unless you synthetic-ascend them, and during that entire time they would benefit from habitability even if you didn't.

That you talk about "most pop growth being natural" within the first century and describe it as early-ish is honestly quite telling. And no, the small number of pops won't make that big a difference. A single robot assembly plant will have a bigger impact. You're also simply assuming that you're somehow finishing the Yuht precursor in a time frame where you could still utilize it for the early game rush. That's not the case most of the time.

I'm not talking about any sort of rush. I'm talking about across the first century of a standard game, when planets are still in their growing phase and the economy is at it's most dynamic.

Even if we arbitrairly say that Yuht secrets are unlocked at year 30, and the player gets universal garden worlds/20% habitability-and-nothing-but-ideal-biomes types/synth ascension/whatever else makes habitability useless by year 60, a 30 year period of 5% organic population growth and 5% economic output from organic pops is going to be considerably significant. This is the point in most games where a 5% will matter most- whether in pre-empting mid-game rivals, or getting investments that will acrue with time.

And that's if we limit it to just 30 years. Depending on your builds, it could go much further.

 

[currylambchop]

I saw someone 3000 fleet above cap. Bet he wouldn’t hate the Yuht lol

 

[Mukip]

There's various reasons described well in this thread about why different people might not be satisfied with a particular precursor:
-stronger precursor feels like cheating against ai
-weaker precursor feels suboptimal
-particular precursor's lore as aid to roleplaying (maybe you want first league to "prove" that cooperation is futile, or yuht to show the futility of aggression)
-particular precursor's mechanics as aid to roleplaying (getting zroni as spiritualists when you desired that)
-may also sabotage players' own designs (materalists getting zroni when they specifically don't want it)
-you just don't want one for whatever reason

You ought to be able to choose a precursor or disable them entirely in the new game options, in addition to having random option as default.

 

[wyldmage]

There's various reasons described well in this thread about why different people might not be satisfied with a particular precursor:
-stronger precursor feels like cheating against ai
-weaker precursor feels suboptimal
-particular precursor's lore as aid to roleplaying (maybe you want first league to "prove" that cooperation is futile, or yuht to show the futility of aggression)
-particular precursor's mechanics as aid to roleplaying (getting zroni as spiritualists when you desired that)
-may also sabotage players' own designs (materalists getting zroni when they specifically don't want it)
-you just don't want one for whatever reason

You ought to be able to choose a precursor or disable them entirely in the new game options, in addition to having random option as default.

And yet many people keep saying "That doesn't matter to the game I think Stellaris is (nevermind that not everyone plays the game the same as I do), and therefore, shouldn't even be talked about.

Like, they don't even consider that maybe both/all types of gamers can work together to create a game everyone enjoys, instead of them just shooting anything balance related down because they only play SP, with mods, etc.

It actually comes across as toxic, because when that's your post, you don't even CARE about the other players, you only care about yourself.

 

[Zoomy]

actually comes across as toxic, because when that's your post, you don't even CARE about the other players, you only care about yourself.

Someone has a different opinion, and therefore they're selfish and toxic?

Wow buddy, get over yourself.

 

[wyldmage]

Someone has a different opinion, and therefore they're selfish and toxic?

Wow buddy, get over yourself.

No, having a different opinion is perfectly fine.

Saying "your opinion doesn't matter" is the problem.

And I have absolutely been respectful of the fact that some people, unlike me, like some unbalanced options. They care primarily about the RP aspects of the game.

I absolutely respect that, and believe that we should balance the game WHILE KEEPING THEIR DESIRES IN MIND.

It is other people in this thread who are saying things like "the game doesn't need to be balanced" who are doing what you accuse me of.

They are attempting to invalidate the entire discussion, instead of contributing to it.

And I said that THAT is the toxic attitude. Invalidating others. Disagree with me all you want. As long as you're willing to have a discussion about the best way to make changes, we're golden. As long as you're willing to say "we can make improvements to balance, and still keep RP potential", we can talk about where to make those changes, how to make those changes, what priority to give those changes.

But saying "no. changes bad. game good. go away." is being toxic and useless.

 

[currylambchop]

Complaining that it's not optimal for min-maxing is silly? Did you read what I said earlier? There are 2 groups that play. One of them IS the min-maxers (the powergamers). And they deserve JUST as much attention as the roleplayers. Just because you are in group A does not give you cause to say group B is inferior.

That right there basically invalidates everything you say, because it demonstrates that you don't even care about players other than yourself.

And 10% habitability is trash for machine empires, lithoids, and void dwellers. For the rest, it is only marginally good. Remember, for a long time, -10% habitability was the BEST negative trait to take (for min-maxers) because of how little habitability mattered. It's not that extreme anymore, but you can still play just fine with lower habitability. The changes you have to make are generally minimal.

Finally, you went STRAIGHT into hyperbole. Like, seriously, are you demonstrating how to make a useless post? Because you have invalidated half of players, demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of several major game mechanics as well as an ignorance for non-standard races, AND used an argument that holds no water because it is done in a ridiculous extreme. That's your entire post.

Then you wouldn't care if everything was balanced either.
Just because it doesn't bother you doesn't mean it doesn't bother other people. Let the game get balanced - you'll still have your fun.

You’re really toxic about people who are hostile about balance when many attempts at balance just ruined the RP potential, and you don’t seem to acknowledge that. For example, shattered ring was gutted into oblivion and now has very little RP potential. It’s not that RPers bad, minmaxers good.
They also removed what made prosperous unification unique because of ‘balance’ so forgive me if I don’t think you have the right to be toxic to RPers when they don’t think the game needs to be balanced.

 

[-Marauder-]

You’re really toxic about people who are hostile about balance when many attempts at balance just ruined the RP potential, and you don’t seem to acknowledge that. For example, shattered ring was gutted into oblivion and now has very little RP potential. It’s not that RPers bad, minmaxers good.
They also removed what made prosperous unification unique because of ‘balance’ so forgive me if I don’t think you have the right to be toxic to RPers when they don’t think the game needs to be balanced.

How would BUFFING some Precursors like Yuht destroy RP value whatsoever.

 

[Zoomy]

For example, shattered ring was gutted into oblivion and now has very little RP potential. It’s not that RPers bad, minmaxers good.

How has the RP potential of SR been affected? You can still tell the same story of a people who grew up on the last remaining habitable area of a massive artificial construction, only now you can also tell the story of how they come back from the brink and reclaim some of their lost glory. If anything the changes were good for RP.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

You’re really toxic about people who are hostile about balance when many attempts at balance just ruined the RP potential, and you don’t seem to acknowledge that. For example, shattered ring was gutted into oblivion and now has very little RP potential. It’s not that RPers bad, minmaxers good.
They also removed what made prosperous unification unique because of ‘balance’ so forgive me if I don’t think you have the right to be toxic to RPers when they don’t think the game needs to be balanced.

Are you also considering the loss of habitable planets part of that nerf? Because I never got why they even had some in the first place. From.tje favour text it's hinted that your ancestors got transported there. So this would be a nerf that made sense in RP.

 

[wyldmage]

You’re really toxic about people who are hostile about balance when many attempts at balance just ruined the RP potential, and you don’t seem to acknowledge that. For example, shattered ring was gutted into oblivion and now has very little RP potential. It’s not that RPers bad, minmaxers good.
They also removed what made prosperous unification unique because of ‘balance’ so forgive me if I don’t think you have the right to be toxic to RPers when they don’t think the game needs to be balanced.

The RP value of Ringworlds weren't hit at all. Their power was.

RPers don't want Doomsday buffed because they want a "bad" or "challenging" RP start. So why are RPers complaining about Ringworld? You can still pick it. It's still a Ringworld that you can get 2 more sections of later. It's still a ridiculously good system if you follow The Worm In Waiting chain to a specific conclucusion.

However, I've already said, twice, earlier in the thread that I can respect that opinion anyways. You're missing my main point:

I'm not hostile towards people who are voicing valid opinions (and no nerfs, they nerfed Ringworld too hard is a valid opinion, whether or not I agree with it). However, opinions that don't make sense (Don't buff Yuht, they nerfed Ringworlds too hard), and shut-down arguments (don't buff the game, I'm a RPer and don't care about balance, this whole thread is a waste) get my ire.

However, I've clearly laid out WHY those arguments are useless in this thread, and instead am pushing & promoting actual discussion. If you think that is being toxic, then you're in for some rude awakenings later in your life.

 

[wyldmage]

Hey, Ashram Darkstar, you have disagreed with almost every post I have made in this thread, but you haven't once posted your own opinions, or why you disagree or anything.
You have your profile hidden from public view.

I'd love to hear your thoughts. You obviously have strong feelings about this topic if you are reading it daily and disagreeing. So, speak up!